What is Bush on about?
 

George Bush said he wants to go into Iraq and make sure they are not contructing weapons of mass destruction. Yet America have nuclear power to that also can create mass destruction, does anyone agree with Bush? if so plz explain

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Surfacing ]

I believe they had some sort of treaty saying that iraq cannot have weapons of mass distructions/biological weapons.

also wouldn't you want to make sure that your enemys couldn't defeat you?

forget defeat...I really think the moment some desperate country who feels they have nothing left to lose fires a nuke, well to quote the Brewmaster's Slig, "WE'RE SCREWED! PANTS, I NEED SOME PANTS, PANTS!!!"

Anyhoo as cool as firearms are I think in real combat they are for wimps! So I say throw away our guns and get back to real fighting...WITH SWORDS!! That's right, see how many soldiers are willing to go out with broadswords and katanas to fight! Betcha wouldn't see so much large-scale violence anymore if that were the case! I know I wouldn't want to be run through by a cutlass or sliced in half by a finely forged katana, no sir-ey Odd!

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Eibu ]

While Bush's position (it's actually US policy -- any president would agree with him, Democrat or Republican) might seem hypocritical on the surface (no pun intended, Surfacing), the United States is committed to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are scaling back on how many we have (although it's still a ridiculously large amount), and working closely with Russia/former Soviet Union. However, given that the Soviet Union -- which has tons and tons of nukes -- was our archenemy as recently as 1989, we weren't about to just get rid of all of them.

Another important objective is keeping nukes and biochemical weapons out of the hands of nutjobs like Saddam. I think it's fair to say that the US is committed to not using nukes, but Saddam would probably use one as soon as he got the last bolt screwed into place. I think there is little doubt that if the Taliban had had nukes, their boy bin Laden wouldn't have bothered with flying some puny jumbo jets into a few buildings. We need to work on fewer countries having them, not more, and maybe someday (*gazes into the distance daydreaming wistfully about true world peace and sister/brotherhood*) we can get rid of all of ours too. :)

Doug!
u said "the United States is committed to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons" when the u.s themself's have nuclear power 2, don't u think the u.s should be concentrating more on getting reed of there own nukes b 4 getting other nations off nukes?

1. The US is working on reducing its stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, if you think the US will get rid of all of them while other countries still have them, you're not being realistic.

2. It's not a matter of getting other nations "off nukes" -- it's a matter of keeping nations that don't have nukes now from ever getting them. Especially rogue nations like Iraq, which has already demonstrated its readiness to use chemical weapons by killing its own people (Kurds) with them.

3. Having nuclear weapons presents a deterrent to other countries from using them. If the only thing keeping Saddam or some other idiot from lobbing one over here is the fear that we will level them in response, then so be it.

While some people will call me naive, I believe that deterrence is the only reason that the US has held onto its nukes. We used nukes offensively once when the technology was brand new, and while some believe it brought an earlier end to WWII and saved lives, there is much, much regret over the fact. There are very few people, if any, that believe it's the way to conduct warfare.

So, as I said, I am all for getting rid of all nukes, but the fact remains that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The US isn't going to get rid of all of its nukes while other countries that might very possibly use them against the US are trying to build them.

so u'r saying America has the right to have nuclear warfare, but Iraq is'nt just because there president is Threatening to use them?
Yet Iraq hav'nt used them and most likely never will knowing the u.s to has nuclear weapons. Iraq could do the exact samething to America, and let me tell you America would not like that one bit.

HELL YEAH!!!

*agrees with Eibu* Oh yeah....I hate guns. Swords and the like are much more 'personal'. Guns are just a cowards way of killing someone....

any man can kill a faceless person in the distance it takes a true killer to kill face to face.


and they won't get rid of all there nukes till they find something better.

Yes.

EDIT: (that is, have nuclear weapons, not wage nuclear warfare)

Iraq hasn't used nukes because they don't have them. They do have chemical weapons and they've used them on their own people.

Furthermore, the effort to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Iraq is a United Nations effort, which means that United Nations member countries, including the UK and Australia, agree with the US.

You are absolutely, positively correct, Surfacing. The US wouldn't like that one bit. That's why its making sure that Saddam doesn't get his hands on nukes. In fact, we don't want any country that doesn't already have them, friend or foe, to get nukes. That just increases the chance that a terrorist will get his hands on one.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Doug ]

I'm surprised Mal didn't have anything to say about this.

Trey: She wouldn't come near me...*picks up staff*
Staffs are my personal favourite...nice and pointy.

Oi, go back to the RPG. In fact, you've never even been there (not in my posts, anyway).

Trey: Yer, whatever...*wanders to RPG* (hopefully)

:( :mad: :D
That's funny! And frightening! And slightly offensive! But really clever!

I agree with Doug. If America didn't check Iraq for Nukuler wepons then Saddam would probably be using them right now causing mass chaos and trying to rule every contry out there. I would have to say that the U.S is actually a responsable contry, we may have nukes but we don't go crazy with them, wheras Iraq would just blow up the anything that they didn't like.

Doug!
How do u know the terrorists can't get there hands on nukes from America, and if it has already happened a doubt America would be putting it on the news cause that would just make em look stupid, terrorists is a world wide thing and has to be stopped not just in arab worlds but also in America, UK, Australia, China, anywere!

I'm not saying what America is doing is wrong i'm just saying why ar'nt they tackling other countries that have nukes and terrorist's?

I don't know, but I am trusting those in charge of security of nuclear materials to do their jobs and not let these materials get into the wrong hands. I think that they were doing a pretty good job, but after September 11, I imagine those people are really on their toes right now.

I don't know where you live, Surfacing, but here in the US it is illegal for the government to even attempt to control what the news media does with information it obtains. I will grant you that the government has in the past and probably will continue to attempt to prevent embarrassing information from getting to the press, but if the American press gets ahold of the fact that terrorists have gotten American nuclear materials, it will be on the front page of every newspaper in the country and the lead to every news broadcast.

I don't believe I've said anything to contradict that point, and I am certainly not suggesting that terrorism is an Arab issue. The US is trying to control nuclear proliferation everywhere and to stop terrorists everywhere, including the United States. A few years ago there was a massive manhunt for an American terrorist called the Unabomber (Ted Kasczynski) who sent letter bombs to people that championed modern technology. You can be sure that the FBI (federal cops) are investigating other American terrorists.

If it seems like the US is picking on Iraq, that is because in late 1990 or early 1991 Iraq invaded the sovereign state of Kuwait, committed atrocities against and pillaged the citizenry of Kuwait, and then when turned back by an alliance of UN member countries, set fire to 700 Kuwaiti oil wells. They also fired missiles at Israel, which might well have had nuclear warheads in them if Iraq knew how to build them, although the deterrence effect of the US, France, and UK having nuclear weapons may have dissuaded that.

At the end of the war, by UN mandate, inspectors were to be allowed into Iraq to ensure that they were not building nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. When those inspectors started getting into areas that Iraq didn't want seen, they ejected the inspectors from Iraq. So, as you see, we have an established history with Iraq and that is why Bush seems to be focusing on Iraq right now. Just as it was discovered that bin Laden had the full support of the ruling government, there is considerable suspicion that Iraq's government sponsors and harbors terrorists as well.

Is it really a big deal if Iraq are building nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons? They would only use such weapons in defence now days, cause most other countries would have nuclear power 2.
Hypnotically speaking what if Russia started bombing Iraq with nukes, what will the Iraq's use againest an enemy that is using nuclear power? yet i agree with most Americans that Iraq's leader should step down because he has obviously given the world a bad impression on nukes. So if Iraq eleceted a new leader, one that was not Obsessed with nukes, would America let Iraq have nukes?
Also u mentioned that Iraq don't know how to build nukes, if that's the case why are Americans so worried bout Iraq building nukes?

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Surfacing ]

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Surfacing ]

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Surfacing ]

in reply that the media wouldn't say anything: right now they wouldn't the media only tell people what they want to hear during world war 2 they would rather talk about 1 german dieing that 10,000 inocent people they would talk about war heros and flying aces on the front page yet story's of death camps would get a page near the middle.

Lorne says

Yes. Do you have even the slightest idea of what a nuclear bomb does? If you did, you wouldn't be so puzzled about this.

Because they will build them if they can acquire the know-how and weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.

Steve: I think you are completely wrong about the media, at least the American media. The Afghan civilian casualties were being reported to the extent that it could be confirmed that the Taliban wasn't making it up for propaganda purposes. That's not something people here wanted to hear.

With regard to the German concentration camps, Americans didn't know about them at all until the Germans surrendered and Allied armies occupied Germany. By the way, it would really help if you would use a little punctuation.

Actually, there is a scarily large number of people who were glad to hear that...

If the US is [as Doug said] "committed to not using nukes", then I find it hard to justify having them. Having weapons just creates the temptation to use them. We don't want another arms race...

One more thing: The Russian KGB has lost track of up to 40 suitcase-sized Nuclear Bombs, each of which has enough power to flatten a small city. Just a thought to help you all sleep at night...

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Rettick ]

Doug
U seemed to have ignored my question on, what happens when Iraq gets attacked by nation with nukes?????

Let's just hope that never happens, shall we? Nuclear war is utterly and completely unthinkable; the devastation that would ensue is beyond human comprehension.